Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Rename to Armoured flight deck and cleanup. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs

 * – ( View AfD View log )

How should we delete thee, oh silly page? Let me count the ways: It is for the reasons that I move that we deleted this page as soon as possible. I said it before, but its worth saying again: Help me send a message to all our contributors that we will not tolerate these articles on our site, nor we will accept their drama and conflict. Delete this article, ladies and gentlemen. To allow it leave another week speaks poorly to our ability to uphold our own policies and guidelines. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First, this is in open violation of the NPOV policy. Comparing carrier class 1 and carrier class 2 does not provide a neutral assessment of the ships in a fleet at the time, nor does it fully take into account the matter of other nation's carriers. Neutrality demands that all nations get an equal share of the comparison. Creating such an article would be a waste of resources on Wikipedia.
 * Second, this is in open violation of our Original Research policy. Short of actually having a documented battle between these two classes everything in the article is based on educated guesswork, and while it may be educated the fact remains that guesswork is guesswork. Since all ships in both classes are now razorblades or retired rust piles we will never know. Not withstanding paper statistics there are other matters that a comparison could never hope to take into account. Factors like the psychological warfare perspective need to be taken into account, and they clearly are not in this article.
 * Third, the ship class articles themselves can serve as a comparison. One of the main goals of article expansion on Wikipedia is to create a "we report, you decide" nature with the articles: we will report the strengths and weakness in the articles with citations to second and third party sources, and leave it to others to decide how they ships would have measured up in combat. Articles like this defeat the whole purpose of that approach.
 * Fourth, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. So we are comparing numbers. So what? Our ships templates can do the same thing in half the space with a greater investment return by adding histories, service records, armor and armament info, etc. If the article adheres to WP:NOT, you must delete it without a second thought!
 * Fifth, this invites a ton of articles here all with a comparison between class-a and class-b, which wastes space. We don't need these kinds of articles clogging up our site with information already presented elsewhere, no do we need the nationalism, drama, or warring over the articles this invites. Keep everything in one nice little place or we are going to end up with (for lack of a better term) "comparison-cruft" pages. Shelling this beachhead now ensures that we crush such an invasion before its members get organized move on to other articles like tanks, bombers, missiles, etc.
 * Sixth, we have had this discussion before. In fact, this afd is essentially a rehashing of all the point listed on the noted page. Whatsoever be done to one side of the equation should also be done to the other.


 * Delete - Per nom - not much more can be added to that, but a lot of the article is synthesis. - BilCat (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant information to flight deck, or an article on armoured flight deck. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename or Merge The article should not be deleted but should be renamed: "The development of armoured flight deck aircraft carriers". This article provides an invaluable history of the development of RN and USN armoured flight decks in aircraft carriers which is of great interest to anyone interested in naval history.Damwiki1 (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Mainly based on the WP:NOR issue, which it really needs to bring it up to any kind of scratch. ALR (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Armoured flight deck (it seems to be a British thing). Bicycle helmet compares the helmeted to the unhelmeted head, but there is no need to say that in the title. Borock (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom - Renaming or merging the article, as currently written, would still provide a bias towards one design over the other.Nilaequitas (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject of armoured flight decks still needs to be covered and we do not want to lose viable material that can be saved.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The current article can be userfied so the sources and data ae still accesible. - BilCat (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —AustralianRupert (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge any salvagable material to Flight deck and/or Aircraft carrier, then delete without redirect. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Flight deck section seems to be a good short summary of the issue, and seems sufficuent. It could probably use some rewriting to include the faact that the larger US carries needed the filt deck to be the strength deck, and maybe adding some additional sources from the deleted article. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete nominator: he signed his name twice, was funny in his prose, and is attempting to further the admittedly anti-carrier agenda of the Battleship Cabal.  bahamut0013  words deeds 22:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, um, I mean... Partial merge to Flight deck. Seems a shame to dump all of that really insightful and well-referenced analysis, but Tom was right on the head of the nail when he said that it's mostly OR and gives a slipperly slope to POV. As long as the merger is careful to add only the well-referenced theory, instead of made-up examples, it avoids the NOT and CRYSTAL issues with hypothetical battle scenarios.  bahamut0013  words deeds 22:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC
 * I agree with the well cited sources, and the interest of the subject, but unfortunately, most of the sources added, support a design over another. It's not objective, and thus has no use here. This subject itself is a slippery slope, either you give it a passing mention, or you devote copious study to the subject, and not just on armoured flight deck carriers from one nation, as most of the sources/article point out. Frankly, there are too many factors not considered, and thus validity suffers. Due to the POV intermixed thoughout the article, either deletion, or a complete objective rewrite is required.Nilaequitas (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete nominator - this is an anti-carrier agenda and is a surreptious attack on the Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier programme!
 * Delete - merge any appropriate content to Flight deck or other appropriate article, and then delete without redirect. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The USN adopted armoured flight decks before the end of WW2 and have used them ever since, as Flight deck states, quite clearly. An article on the development of armoured flight decks has to show why the USN came to agree with the RN, and this doesn't constitute bias any more than any article on the demise or rise of any concept.Damwiki1 (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is titled "Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs", not "The preference of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs". My point is any article with POV, does not belong here.Nilaequitas (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The USN introduced the concept of All or Nothing armour on battleships, and the RN adopted that design concept, starting with the Nelson class because the RN concluded that it was a superior idea, yet stating this is hardly POV pushing. The article simply needs to be renamed and rewritten to show how and why both navies (and the IJN) adopted armoured flight decks.Damwiki1 (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment As I sugessted earlier, when this article is deleted, it could be serfied to retain the data and sources. This could be used to help expand the Flight deck section, though slowly and in a neutral manner. if the section grows to the point htat it begins to overwhelm the rest of the article, then at that point splitting it off to create Armoured flight deck could be discussed. - BilCat (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you keep the content then you have to keep the edit history for attribution too. See WP:MAD. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then just delete it outright, and start over! - BilCat (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems to be a spinoff from flight deck which otherwise has little on the notable topic of the armoured flight deck. This topic is detailed in thousands of books and the content here seems to be a familiar summary of it, rather then being OR and POV, as the nomination fancifully claims.  The title should just be the plain one of armoured flight deck but that's a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Just rename it to Armoured flight deck as the Colonel suggested. There are references in the article.  Discuss anything you believe wrong with the article on its talk page, and work at cleaning it up.  If there is a wikiproject for this sort of thing, ask them for assistance and input.   D r e a m Focus  11:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename and Clean-up Information in the article is useful and cited, but could use editing for length, depth, and formatting, since it seems to ramble at times and provide more information than necessary in some areas. The article should be altered to focus primarily on the concept of an armored flight deck, with a secondary focus on the comparison between armored and unarmored decks. This would fall within Wikipedia's grounds for retainment, as it would cover a valid naval engineering concept as well as provide background to the controversies of the design, just as articles on bridges and engines compare the different strengths and advantages of each. the_one092001 (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The essay Comparison Articles and Original Research covers this. Also see search. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename and cleanup. The sources do indeed discuss the comparison between armoured and unarmoured deck aircraft carriers, therefore this is neither WP:OR nor POV. If there are issues with how it is worded in a POV way, these can be resolved with a rewrite. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into Flight deck. The existing article requires extensive revisions for completeness and other issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Armoured flight deck - a few years I wrote an essay on Comparison Articles and Original Research. It was designed to consider when a comparison article between one notable topic and a second notable topic (e.g. Politics of Canada and Politics of Australia) could itself be considered notable. This isn't directly comparable to this situation and its not comparing two notable subjects but is rather a section of the article Flight_deck. However, the principles outlined in that essay may be useful to this discussion. In particular, I said that notability must be demonstrated with sources that do the comparison itself. As Demiurge1000 notes above, the sources do this, so it passes the article-level test for OR/N (which is not to say there may not be any OR in the article itself). NPOV can only be a valid ground for deletion if an article is inherently NPOV, and I can't see why that would be the case. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge to Aircraft carrier. It has POV & OR issues, but it's a valuable look at the different design choices, why they got made, & what the implications were. It is a bit RN-heavy IMO, but... (FYI, I happen to agree with its conclusion the armored decks were superior, so take that with a grain of powder. ;p)  Davy Jones   Monkee around  18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Armoured flight deck Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - When my sister was working on her thesis for her Master's degree, she mentioned her Professor told the class not to mention Wikipedia as a reliable source. I really hope those adding comments on the questioned article, have read it, or ar at least have some knowledge (objective) on the subject. Nilaequitas (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC
 * Keep and rename to Armoured flight deck as it seems to incorporate relevant information with adequate referencing but the name is a non-starter and the very obvious comparisons should be pruned or re-written. As it is written right now, it does as the original nominator details, fall into a very controversial and contentious category of "my .... is better than yours!'' FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge but not really sure where. While there are some issues here, there's a lot of it that's frankly useful detail about WWII-era aircraft carrier design.  Some of this material could be put in articles like Essex class aircraft carrier, though Trekphiler's suggestion of moving it to the main article makes plenty of sense, especially since it gives detail on the evolution of the designs.  SDY (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.